However, I would like to conjecture that since you stealth as part of your move action, the GM in my game in which I do play a shadowdancer, have come to a decision that if I did have Spring Attack the process would be one stealth check for the full move. I would roll my stealth check, move, attack, retreat. The initial move up to the opponent would have no penalty save the ones already there. I would attack, if I'm unobserved, I get Sneak Attack (10 Rogue/4 Shadowdancer atm). Then I move away. Note: I do not roll another stealth check as this is technically still one move action thus one stealth roll. Therefore, we take my stealth roll I made earlier and apply an appropriate penalty (not sniping but an appropriate one) since I just ganked a guy in the back and he more than likely felt that... :)
It seems like you and your DM have an understanding on a house-rule that works for you. If the two of you have come to that agreement and neither of you have a problem with it then great, it is your game play it how it works.
Personally I think there are some holes in it though:
1) Stealth is not taken as part of a Move Action but rather as part of a movement. A whole range of things could count as a movement; to include even a 5' step, which is not a Move Action, in fact it is not an action at all. So if you could potentially use Stealth as part of a 5' step (A non-action) I think it would be fair to allow two Stealth checks (which are also usually non-actions) with a Spring Attack in which you are taking two movements (both larger than a 5' step) separated by an attack.
2) If, however, you and your DM agree that only one Stealth check per turn may be used then I don't think you would be able to re-Stealth after your attack. Attacking forces you to leave Stealth and without a new Stealth check you cannot hide as you move away. Neither HiPS nor Spring Attack allow you to maintain Stealth through an attack. Also each new movement (being an action that could potentially get you noticed) should require a new Stealth check. So when you attack you become visible (noticed) and as you move away you need a new Stealth check to slip back into the shadows.
3) If you and your DM do allow the second Stealth check as part of the second movement then there will be no penalty to that Stealth check. That is not to say that the bonuses and penalties to Perception checks to notice you won't apply, but there will be no penalty to the Stealth check itself. Your argument for the penalty is that you have been noticed after you stab your opponent. But that is exactly what HiPS is for, you can use Stealth even while observed, with no penalty.
Stealth check and move - attack - Stealth check and move w/penalty for stabbing
The "use the initial role minus penalty" thing is just a way to truncate the math and action to get the "game on". It keeps you from having to roll dice over and over from the same bundle of actions. If you think of it that way then you are not "stealthing while attacking" you are stealthing, attacking, stealthing...and in my mind at the point that you have sunk the feats, skills, class level and gained the Presitge to do all that...well...have fun.
Each new movement is something that could potentially get you spotted or heard, and therefore new Stealth checks and new Perception checks should be made. Perhaps the Rogue would make a bad step on the second check and get noticed, but if you skip that he might not. If you wanted to use the first Stealth check as a result for the second for the sake of not rolling one extra d20 that would save a little time I suppose but again there would be no penalty. Even a Rogue without HiPS could pull off the first part of this tactic: Move/Stealth, Attack with Sneak Attack. The only difference between the first Stealth check and the second one is that the Rogue is now visible and being observed. A normal Rogue would not be able to re-Stealth after this attack. But HiPS specifically allows you to use Stealth while being observed and so in this situation you can in fact hide and there should be no penalty for doing so as HiPS does not mention any penalty for hiding while being observed.
...
A lot of people say, "But it is kind of like Sniping so I think it is fair to add the Sniping penalty." The fact is that it is nothing like Sniping and if you add the Sniping rules then you are breaking them. While Sniping the Stealth check is made to maintain your obscured location which is to say you are never noticed. Also the Stealth check takes up your whole Move Action which is a far cry from the Move/Stealth, Attack with SA, Move/Stealth tactic of Spring Attack. There is also the fact that Sniping is a set of rules for ranged attacks only. So if you want to apply the Sniping rules to a guy with HiPS making a Spring Attack and using the Move/Stealth, Attack with SA, Move/Stealth tactic you are in fact breaking several of the Sniping subset of rules to do so.
1) Subset of the basic Stealth skill vs. Stealth + HiPS.
2) Ranged vs. Melee.
3) Staying perfectly still vs. Making two movements as part of a Move Action.
4) Applying a penalty for using Stealth while observed when HiPS clearly says you may use Stealth while observed with no mention of a penalty.
This is discussed in great detail in the Hide in Plain Sight thread I linked up-thread. It is specifically addressed in these posts:
HERE, HERE and HERE.
|
I think you guys are mixing 2 concepts involved in hiding.
One is that you need something to hide behind. This is easy:
- No cover/concealement-> Can't hide (even with HiPS).
- Partial cover/concealement -> Can hide if not observed.
- Total cover / concealemente -> No need to hide as you already can't be seen.
Now about the second part, with partial cover/concealement is where HiPS can come into play. If you have been detected while hidden, you are being observed. You can't hide again unless you create a diversion (bluff) or can apply de HiPS ability.
If you want an example, consider a clear in a forest, with the observer in the middle. Around it, at 10 feet from the observer, a zone of dense vegetation that provides concealement. A character could get in that zone and not be seen by the observer using Stealth. Then he could attack/cast a spell/do something that attracts attention. On the following round, he could not hide again unless he created a diversion or had HiPS, as the observer is already observing him.
About moving and making a melee attack, it's clearly not allowed by RAW in PFPRG. 'You cannot hide while attacking' the only mentioned exception is sniping, so no exception for melee attacks.
Nevertheless, there is an optional rule found out in Complete Adventurer which could be applied. (from memory) It said you can get out of cover/concealement and remain hidden till you do something that attracts attention or the round ends. You had to make a Hide (now would be Stealth) check, with a -5 penalty for every 5 feet moved out of cover/concealement. This rule would allow a character to move and sneak attack in melee. (this could be used too to walk from one side to the other of a doorway without being noticed).
A cakey explanation of Stealth snd HiPS.
This is absolutely great. May I ask permission to quote you when this subject arises at our gaming table?
- No cover/concealement-> Can't hide (even with HiPS).
This is wrong:
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): A shadowdancer can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as she is within 10 feet of an area of dim light, a shadowdancer can hide herself from view in the open without anything to actually hide behind. She cannot, however, hide in her own shadow.
Hide in Plain Sight (Su): At 8th level, an assassin can use the Stealth skill even while being observed. As long as he is within 10 feet of some sort of shadow, an assassin can hide himself from view in the open without having anything to actually hide behind. He cannot, however, hide in his own shadow.
Camouflage (Ex): A ranger of 12th level or higher can use the Stealth skill to hide in any of his favored terrains, even if the terrain doesn't grant cover or concealment.
Hide in Plain Sight (Ex): While in any of his favored terrains, a ranger of 17th level or higher can use the Stealth skill even while being observed.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that someone with HiPS cannot hide without cover/concealment but according to the written descriptions of the various types of HiPS you would be wrong.
- Partial cover/concealement -> Can hide if not observed.
With only the basic Stealth skill you would need a distraction (Bluff), however, if you have HiPS you can hide even while observed and as demonstrated above you can do this even without cover/concealment if you satisfy the prerequisites of your version of HiPS.
- Total cover / concealemente -> No need to hide as you already can't be seen.
True you cannot be seen, but you could still be heard and so a Stealth check is still generally needed to avoid detection.
Now about the second part, with partial cover/concealement is where HiPS can come into play. If you have been detected while hidden, you are being observed. You can't hide again unless you create a diversion (bluff) or can apply de HiPS ability.
As shown above, with HiPS you do not need cover/concealment to hide if you satisfy the requirements for HiPS.
About moving and making a melee attack, it's clearly not allowed by RAW in PFPRG. 'You cannot hide while attacking' the only mentioned exception is sniping, so no exception for melee attacks.
No one is talking about hiding during a melee attack. We are discussing moving in under Stealth, then attacking (which makes you visible), then moving away again using a new Stealth check. And yes you would gain SA while doing this, but you would become momentarily visible until you hide again.
Nevertheless, there is an optional rule found out in Complete Adventurer which could be applied. (from memory) It said you can get out of cover/concealement and remain hidden till you do something that attracts attention or the round ends. You had to make a Hide (now would be Stealth) check, with a -5 penalty for every 5 feet moved out of cover/concealement. This rule would allow a character to move and sneak attack in melee. (this could be used too to walk from one side to the other of a doorway without being noticed).
This is the rule you are refering to:
Move between Cover: If you’re already hiding (thanks
to cover or concealment) and you have at least 5 ranks in
Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try
to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealment
without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks
in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between
one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open
space you must cross between hiding places, you take a
–5 penalty on your Hide check. If you move at more than
one-half your speed, you also take the normal penalty
on Hide checks when moving quickly (–10 for moving
faster than normal speed, or –5 for moving between half
speed and normal speed).
You can also use this option to sneak up on someone
from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space
between you and the target, you take a –5 penalty on
your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your
target doesn’t notice you until you attack or make some
other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated
as being flat-footed with respect to you.
Rangers can use stealth without cover/concealment at 12th level (Camouflage).
Rangers can use stealth whilst being observed at 17th level (HIPS).
Assassins and Shadowdancers are pretty much equivalent to the ranger thang only with a different requirement - shadow other than their own within 10'. That could easily be the targets shadow, strange as it sounds.
And also strange but true - a ranger can choose the elemental plane of fire as terrain, and be able to HIPS anywhere on that plane. Sounds odd, but I guess he just knows how those flames dance...
I really don't see how anyone can argue with this kind of stuff.
My question would be how good could a rogue get without HIPS? I suppose bluffing is the only option.
Matt, your reading off the 3.5 shadow dancer. In pathfinder only the Assassin can hide using only it's targets shadow as the source. PF shadow dances need an area of dim light as describe with the other lighting conditions. ( i guess maybe if the creature us big enough to cast a *very* large shadow perhaps that would fly.)
For a rogue bluffing yes. However don't forget that any kind of concealment prevents sneak attacks. Ranged attacks from cover or concealment into brighter areas are likely a non-invisible rogues best option.
Sniping is still a very good option (with all the ranged attack boosting feats). As you don't 'blip' into existance your foes can't take real good guess as to where you are. By blipping just for that instant you give them a much better idea of where to start dropping area of effect attacks in the hopes they hit you. Maybe not for sneak attacks as you want range to help off set the hide penalty.
However don't forget that any kind of concealment prevents sneak attacks.
A very good point to bring up. This is why Lowlight Vision and/or Darkvision are imperative for any Rogue. Several base races have LV or DV and several Rogue PrCs have one or the other form of vision as class abilities. There is also a 2nd lvl Wiz/Sorc spell that grants DV for 1 hour per level. The DV spell would be easy enough to use as a permanent enchant on a head piece of some sort. Also the DV spell can be made permanent via the Permanency spell.
|
PirateDevon wrote:
Stealth check and move - attack - Stealth check and move w/penalty for stabbing
The "use the initial role minus penalty" thing is just a way to truncate the math and action to get the "game on". It keeps you from having to roll dice over and over from the same bundle of actions. If you think of it that way then you are not "stealthing while attacking" you are stealthing, attacking, stealthing...and in my mind at the point that you have sunk the feats, skills, class level and gained the Presitge to do all that...well...have fun.
Each new movement is something that could potentially get you spotted or heard, and therefore new Stealth checks and new Perception checks should be made. Perhaps the Rogue would make a bad step on the second check and get noticed, but if you skip that he might not. If you wanted to use the first Stealth check as a result for the second for the sake of not rolling one extra d20 that would save a little time I suppose but again there would be no penalty. Even a Rogue without HiPS could pull off the first part of this tactic: Move/Stealth, Attack with Sneak Attack. The only difference between the first Stealth check and the second one is that the Rogue is now visible and being observed. A normal Rogue would not be able to re-Stealth after this attack. But HiPS specifically allows you to use Stealth while being observed and so in this situation you can in fact hide and there should be no penalty for doing so as HiPS does not mention any penalty for hiding while being observed.
Yeah I know I was speaking to their interpretation not mine. I would always break it up justl ike you say but sometimes people want to work with their own ideas.
|
|
I really don't see how anyone can argue with this kind of stuff.
People argue because they caught up on the language and then they fight about how it "looks" in their imagination (see earlier in thread).
Dim light is cover, no it is concealment, no it is dim light.
Can a guy hide in a shadow? Well some guys can hide in shadows. What if a guy is watching the shadow? Well this guy can hide even if someone is watching the shadow.
What if a guy is watching a guy who is hiding but that hiding guy is hiding from someone else?
The technical minded then want to emphasize where penalties are assessed and how and it gets complicated because some of that stuff involves how particular groups are about where the penalties are applied and how. No there is no penalty on stealth, but there may be a bonus to perceive, etc.
All valid. All fine. Sometimes I think people get so entrenched in the specific details they don't see the "big picture" stuff that can really just be ruled with common sense. That is not to say that it isn't important to get the technical details down but some people are more exacting then others and I think that is where half the "yes, but, maybe" style arguments happen.
Honorable mention to Shadowlord for some very nicely detailed posts and thread pointing.
Just a quick comment on this. In dim light you don't have cover but you can hide.This was a mistake, I meant to say concealment, sorry.
Well actually, it's not concealment either because concealment would have a miss chance associated... It's just something that is explicitly allowed.
|
|
Well actually, it's not concealment either because concealment would have a miss chance associated... It's just something that is explicitly allowed.Just a quick comment on this. In dim light you don't have cover but you can hide.This was a mistake, I meant to say concealment, sorry.
Not that I am really hell bent on causing trouble but:
Per the SRD:
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source...blah blah blah.
Why use that example if dim light is not concealment?
And again per SRD:
Vision and Light:
Blah blah blah...
In an area of bright light, all characters can see clearly. A creature can’t hide in an area of bright light unless it is invisible or has cover.
In an area of shadowy illumination, a character can see dimly. Creatures within this area have concealment relative to that character. A creature in an area of shadowy illumination can make a Stealth check to conceal itself....blah blah blah
This thread has become very painful...except for the very last part.
Just remember...cake.
But but... The Cake is a LIE!
Yeah I know I was speaking to their interpretation not mine. I would always break it up justl ike you say but sometimes people want to work with their own ideas.
I see; I mistook your meaning then.
People argue because they caught up on the language and then they fight about how it "looks" in their imagination (see earlier in thread).
Dim light is cover, no it is concealment, no it is dim light.
Can a guy hide in a shadow? Well some guys can hide in shadows. What if a guy is watching the shadow? Well this guy can hide even if someone is watching the shadow.
What if a guy is watching a guy who is hiding but that hiding guy is hiding from someone else?
The technical minded then want to emphasize where penalties are assessed and how and it gets complicated because some of that stuff involves how particular groups are about where the penalties are applied and how. No there is no penalty on stealth, but there may be a bonus to perceive, etc.
All valid. All fine. Sometimes I think people get so entrenched in the specific details they don't see the "big picture" stuff that can really just be ruled with common sense. That is not to say that it isn't important to get the technical details down but some people are more exacting then others and I think that is where half the "yes, but, maybe" style arguments happen.
I definitely see your point. I realize that I argue RAW quite fervently sometimes, the reason is generally because I think knowing how RAW works allows you to better understand the intent of the rules and make a more educated decisions on any house-rules you may want to incorporate into your game. In the games I play I rarely stick strictly to RAW, my group has a few house rules that we all feel makes the game a little more interesting or fun. Unfortunately I think many people make up house-rules for certain aspects of the game because they genuinely don't understand how the rules are intended to work or how to interpret RAW. This confusion is further compounded when other people, who have also house-ruled that aspect of the game, throw in their opinion without the caveat that it is their opinion, then people begin to think their house-rules are RAW and spread it as such. It snowballs until you have an entire community that doesn't understand how the RAW is supposed to play out. What you eventually end up with, for example, are people who adamantly claim that HiPS doesn't let you hide without cover/concealment or when you are being observed and they are shocked and confused when you point out the passage of RAW that explicitly shows them to be wrong.
Please don't take this as me claiming to be an authority on RAW. I just happen to be quite familiar with the rules for Stealth, Lighting, HiPS and related things, mostly for two reasons: 1) I almost exclusively play Rogues. 2) I have been debating the subject on these forums a lot lately and have read over the rules numerous times of late.
That said, I am more than willing to admit my mistakes and change my stance on RAW when proven wrong. Actually these forum debates have brought many things to my attention that I was previously unaware of. They force me to study and that keeps me sharp.
Honorable mention to Shadowlord for some very nicely detailed posts and thread pointing.
Thanks.
Not that I am really hell bent on causing trouble but:
Per the SRD:
Ignoring Concealment: Concealment isn't always effective. An area of dim lighting or darkness doesn't provide any concealment against an opponent with darkvision. Characters with low-light vision can see clearly for a greater distance than other characters with the same light source...blah blah blah.
Why use that example if dim light is not concealment?
Hahaha... I'm not going to bandy word with you, it's just semantics. I was looking at the actual definition of various light levels which don't suggest that dim light offers concealment.
Regardless we can agree that dim light lets you stealth but there is no miss chance on attacks. Beyond that I'm not too worried about whether it's called concealment or not. I shouldn't have corrected you.
This was a mistake, I meant to say concealment, sorry.
Well actually, it's not concealment either because concealment would have a miss chance associated... It's just something that is explicitly allowed.
No, dim light does provide concealment (20%) and darkness provides total concealment (50%).
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness. A creature within an area of dim light can make a Stealth check to conceal itself. Areas of dim light include outside at night with a moon in the sky, bright starlight, and the area between 20 and 40 feet from a torch.
In areas of darkness, creatures without darkvision are effectively blinded. In addition to the obvious effects, a blinded creature has a 50% miss chance in combat (all opponents have total concealment), loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and takes a –4 penalty on Perception checks that rely on sight and most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks. Areas of darkness include an unlit dungeon chamber, most caverns, and outside on a cloudy, moonless night.
This was a mistake, I meant to say concealment, sorry.Well actually, it's not concealment either because concealment would have a miss chance associated... It's just something that is explicitly allowed.No, dim light does provide concealment (20%) and darkness provides total concealment (50%).
Gahh!!
Sometimes it frustrates the hell out of me the way rules are scattered all over the book.
|
|
Shadowlord's too big to quote reply to me ; - )
I definitely agree that the technical/RAW issues are worth talking about and clarifying.
I think in addition to the "house rule bleed" that you describe there is the issue of people being, for lack of a better way to describe it, lazy with their syntax or less clear with their examples.
Hell I even did that in thinking of it as a penalty to Stealth versus a bonus to Perception. It is a valid and important distinction, especially to the clarity of a shared document such as these rulebooks.
It just gets difficult to exchange ideas with people who have varying attentions to detail or concern about some of those specifics. I think as long as people aren't being rude the variety of explanations and POV about a subject like this enhances everyone and their ability to understand what the community is expecting or understanding about the game which makes decisions to change those aspects...more informed?
I have appreciated it as a DM because sometimes I get what I need to get across making the whole thing about cake (see earlier in the thread) where as sometimes I play with people who want to hash out those more nitty-gritty technical aspects and a thread like this and the others help provide the basis of greater understanding of those mechanics. Different people have different needs.
|
|
Gahh!!Sometimes it frustrates the hell out of me the way rules are scattered all over the book.
Yeah its one of those things where it almost seems like any time they use a rule concept word like concealment it should be bolded or something to indicate that it refers to a legitimate rule state or definition rather than just some casual reference. I know ideally should make the connection but the visual cue I think would reinforce the connection.
I think if part of the composition and editing process required such a visual distinction then certain arguments would be avoided or descriptions would be clarified because it would be clear that the term is being used as part of a modification or extrapolation of a rule. The SRD has this to some degree but I think it would be useful if done consistently throughout the text.
In my little dream world where everyone has plenty of time and no other projects ; - p
I really don't see how anyone can argue with this kind of stuff.People argue because they caught up on the language and then they fight about how it "looks" in their imagination (see earlier in thread).
Yes, and they also get the wording wrong - like I did in that exact post!
I feel such a tool. Thanks for pointing out my error, Dorje. Although, saying that, how big does a creature need to be to generate an area of dim light?
Honorable mention to Shadowlord for some very nicely detailed posts and thread pointing.
Indeed. You're no slouch yourself, actually. Cake Stealth. Love it.
By the way, I also wish all the rules were in one place. Looking at the stuff for this thread (and my own character as well, if he gets converted to PF!) took me ages!
|
|
I really don't see how anyone can argue with this kind of stuff.People argue because they caught up on the language and then they fight about how it "looks" in their imagination (see earlier in thread).Yes, and they also get the wording wrong - like I did in that exact post!
I feel such a tool. Thanks for pointing out my error, Dorje. Although, saying that, how big does a creature need to be to generate an area of dim light?
OOooo....Hmmm. That would be a cool thing to find out, does the Tarrasaque create a shadow so big it is "dim light" in the center?
That would sorta be hilarious.
Honorable mention to Shadowlord for some very nicely detailed posts and thread pointing.Indeed. You're no slouch yourself, actually. Cake Stealth. Love it.
By the way, I also wish all the rules were in one place. Looking at the stuff for this thread (and my own character as well, if he gets converted to PF!) took me ages!
Thanks. I like trying to find the most ludicrous thing I can think of in those cases to take out the "special effects" of the conversation that seem to muddy things sometimes.
As to the rules...yeah it is one thing that web development and e-books could do a really amazing job of because some of those rules need to be scattered for context purposes (and would you really want to re-read certain text over and over if they put it in each place?) But I think with linking and pop-up boxes and stuff the manuals could be that much faster of a reference tool.
Yeah its one of those things where it almost seems like any time they use a rule concept word like concealment it should be bolded or something to indicate that it refers to a legitimate rule state or definition rather than just some casual reference. I know ideally should make the connection but the visual cue I think would reinforce the connection.
Gahh!!Sometimes it frustrates the hell out of me the way rules are scattered all over the book.
I would just be happy if I could look up "lighting" and find all that I need to know about lighting instead of having to look at 3 different chapters. Bolding and whatnot isn't really needed.
Tracking down stealth requires looking through 3-4 different chapters of the book without even getting into HIPS.
OOooo....Hmmm. That would be a cool thing to find out, does the Tarrasaque create a shadow so big it is "dim light" in the center?
That would sorta be hilarious.
Except at midday of course. During summer. At the equator.
|
|
Except at midday of course. During summer. At the equator.OOooo....Hmmm. That would be a cool thing to find out, does the Tarrasaque create a shadow so big it is "dim light" in the center?
That would sorta be hilarious.
Sadly that is the only place the mighty Tarrasque goes. He is a big lizard. Looking for the the warmest rock.
|
|
Yeah its one of those things where it almost seems like any time they use a rule concept word like concealment it should be bolded or something to indicate that it refers to a legitimate rule state or definition rather than just some casual reference. I know ideally should make the connection but the visual cue I think would reinforce the connection.
Gahh!!Sometimes it frustrates the hell out of me the way rules are scattered all over the book.
I would just be happy if I could look up "lighting" and find all that I need to know about lighting instead of having to look at 3 different chapters. Bolding and whatnot isn't really needed.
Tracking down stealth requires looking through 3-4 different chapters of the book without even getting into HIPS.
Yeah a more robust index might help. Not solely a Paizo issue, sorta a game manual in general issue but PF could be better.
As to the rules...yeah it is one thing that web development and e-books could do a really amazing job of because some of those rules need to be scattered for context purposes (and would you really want to re-read certain text over and over if they put it in each place?) But I think with linking and pop-up boxes and stuff the manuals could be that much faster of a reference tool.
Yeah a more robust index might help. Not solely a Paizo issue, sorta a game manual in general issue but PF could be better.
Something like this would be outstanding. Or perhaps a really good search tool that would run through the entire PRD searching for a word or phrase and show you blurbs for each hit, then give you a link to take you to the original page for each blurb. That type of linking would be a real gift to the PF gamers.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
1) HiPS would let you use Stealth as you move to your target
2) The -20 to Stealth for using Sniping rules does not in any way apply
3) whether or not you are allowed to use Stealth twice in the same Move Action because Spring Attack does not give you two Move Actions
4) Nowhere does it say if you move you leave Stealth.
5) HiPS is not equal to Sniping
1) If you maintain your Stealth (by complying with your Stealth/HiPS requirements like staying within 10ft of Dim Light.)
2) /agree
3) /agree
4) You see, I disagree with this. Everywhere it says you lose your Stealth if you come out of hiding. Otherwise you have ridiculous "RAW" assertions that you can hide behind a barrel then run out 80 ft across an open field and attack "with Stealth" against someone who can't possibly miss you coming.
5) /agree
|
|
4) You see, I disagree with this. Everywhere it says you lose your Stealth if you come out of hiding. Otherwise you have ridiculous "RAW" assertions that you can hide behind a barrel then run out 80 ft across an open field and attack "with Stealth" against someone who can't possibly miss you coming.
Moving and "coming out of hiding" are two separate things.
In some examples people used a low wall - you could continue to move along the low wall, even in broad daylight, because the wall provides cover. If you move away from the wall, however, you are no longer "hiding" and as such, can be seen.
The Stealth check was made to jump behind the barrel. And they did that great. They want to leave the safety of the barrel? Stealth check. But it is broad daylight, so no soup for you.
1) HiPS would let you use Stealth as you move to your target.
1) If you maintain your Stealth (by complying with your Stealth/HiPS requirements like staying within 10ft of Dim Light.)
Right: Obviously if the Rogue is using HiPS he must maintain the prerequisites conditions of using HiPS.
4) Nowhere does it say if you move you leave Stealth.
4) You see, I disagree with this. Everywhere it says you lose your Stealth if you come out of hiding. Otherwise you have ridiculous "RAW" assertions that you can hide behind a barrel then run out 80 ft across an open field and attack "with Stealth" against someone who can't possibly miss you coming.
Your original statement that moving automatically causes you to lose Stealth is false as a blanket statement. It assumes much about the conditions in which these actions are taking place, as well, your reply to me assumes the same conditions. I am well aware that in daylight it requires cover/invisibility to maintain Stealth. But there are more than just daylight scenarios to be considered. And don't forget that, even in daylight, if you have cover through the entirety of your path you are absolutely capable of maintaining Stealth throughout a move.
Your blanket statement seems to only consider conditions of bright or normal light with only a barrel to provide cover. What about the presence of a low wall to provide cover over your whole path, or any number of other cover granting structures? What about in conditions of dim light or darkness when you can hide out in the open using nothing but the shadows which provide concealment? You could easily move, unseen, across a deserted street at night as you would have concealment the entire time and are capable of using that concealment to maintain Stealth as you move. In conditions of dim light or darkness you could even sneak right up behind someone using the concealment to grant you Stealth, all without the need for HiPS. (With varied results depending on your ability to see as well as your opponent's.)
In addition the rules given in the Complete Adventurer and shown up-thread in one of my previous posts talks about doing the exact thing you seem to be against. Moving out from behind cover in broad daylight and maintaining Stealth for a short distance in order to either make it to another source of cover unseen, or sneak up behind a target and strike them, gaining Sneak Attack. Those rules again are:
to cover or concealment) and you have at least 5 ranks in
Hide, you can make a Hide check (with a penalty) to try
to move across an area that does not offer cover or concealment
without revealing yourself. For every 5 ranks
in Hide you possess, you can move up to 5 feet between
one hiding place and another. For every 5 feet of open
space you must cross between hiding places, you take a
–5 penalty on your Hide check. If you move at more than
one-half your speed, you also take the normal penalty
on Hide checks when moving quickly (–10 for moving
faster than normal speed, or –5 for moving between half
speed and normal speed).
You can also use this option to sneak up on someone
from a hiding place. For every 5 feet of open space
between you and the target, you take a –5 penalty on
your Hide check. If your Hide check succeeds, your
target doesn’t notice you until you attack or make some
other attention-grabbing action. Such a target is treated
as being flat-footed with respect to you.
|
|
HiPS does not mention that there is no penalty associated with it. It just says that the use of the Stealth skill is allowed in circumstances where it normally wouldn't be.
Saying that the example given by the OP is intrinsically different from Sniping, and thus that there is no penalty to the Stealth check, ends up in an absurd conclusion :
- A character with HiPS could spring attack and hide with no penalty
- The exact same character, also with HiPS, would get a -20 penalty to his Stealth check if he tried sniping (even though he would not ever come in close contact with his target)
As for saying HiPS becomes like Invisibility, this is patently untrue, as HiPS still requires a Stealth check, while Invisibility does not.
HiPS does not mention that there is no penalty associated with it. It just says that the use of the Stealth skill is allowed in circumstances where it normally wouldn't be.
That is exactly right: "It says you may use the Stealth skill..."
It does not say: "You may use the Sniping rules for melee attacks..."
Nor does it say: "You may use the Stealth skill at a penalty..."
It simply states you may use Stealth even while being observed and with nothing to hide behind. Therefore you may use Stealth. The only penalty associated with Stealth is for Sniping. If you are not Sniping, Stealth has no other mention of a circumstance that would cause penalties to the Stealth roll, and HiPS does not mention any penalty for using Stealth as part of HiPS. Based on that, I come to the conclusion that there is no penalty when using Stealth as part of HiPS unless you are specifically Sniping. Using the Spring Attack feat in conjunction with Stealth/HiPS is not equal to Sniping. There is no rule to justify a penalty to the Stealth check used with HiPS. That is not to say that there may not be bonuses or penalties to Perception checks made to spot you when you attempt to disappear again after your attack.
Saying that the example given by the OP is intrinsically different from Sniping, and thus that there is no penalty to the Stealth check, ends up in an absurd conclusion :
- A character with HiPS could spring attack and hide with no penalty
- The exact same character, also with HiPS, would get a -20 penalty to his Stealth check if he tried sniping (even though he would not ever come in close contact with his target)
That is exactly the conclusion I have and there is nothing absurd about it. In the example given by the OP he is not Sniping, he is merely using normal Stealth twice due to Spring Attack splitting his Move Action in two. The only time any penalty is associated with using Stealth is with Sniping and that is not what the character is doing.
A ranged character with HiPS would have two choices. He can either make a single, Standard Action, attack from Stealth (causing him to appear briefly) then take a Move Action and return to Stealth using HiPS. Or he must use the rules for Sniping where he makes a single, Standard Action, attack from Stealth and then immediately uses his Move Action to roll another Stealth check at -20 in order to completely avoid being seen by his enemies even as he attacks.
The -20 penalty to Stealth for Sniping is not there to show the difficulty of hiding again after someone has spotted you. It is there to show the difficulty of taking your shot without ever being seen. It is hard because if done correctly you never become visible to the opponent. That is something that HiPS does not offer.
I think it is also worth noting two other things here:
1) A character with HiPS could use the Sniping action in conjunction with HiPS. For a Shadowdancer or Assassin this would mean that the character could snipe you from anywhere within 10' of an area of dim light/shadow even without cover/concealment, taking -20 to his Stealth, and you would never see him at all. For a Ranger this means he could stand in the middle of any favored terrain and Snipe you with no cover/concealment, taking -20 to Stealth, and you would never see him either. This is very different from the HiPS/Stealth + Spring Attack tactic in which you become visible during each attack.
2) It is important to remember that Sniping is a ranged tactic. With this Perception checks to notice you become harder by +1 for every 10' of separation between you and the NPC trying to notice you. So, if you are 200' away from your target (easily accomplished with ranged attacks): Yes your Stealth has a -20 penalty due to Sniping, but your enemies Perception check has a +20 to the DC to notice you, effectively eliminating your Stealth Penalty.
As for saying HiPS becomes like Invisibility, this is patently untrue, as HiPS still requires a Stealth check, while Invisibility does not.
This is true. But if you look at the mechanic for invisibility all it does is give you an automatic +20 to Stealth (not requiring a roll) or a +40 if you are standing still. A high enough Perception check will still notice you (even if you still cannot be seen). Also do not discount the fact that two of the three versions of HiPS in PF are (SU) abilities which are by definition magical in nature. The only reason Ranger HiPS isn’t (SU) is because the Ranger is using his familiarity with terrain to blend in rather than a supernatural bond to shadow.
Against a high Perception (at mid to high levels) a character with a high Stealth is far less likely to be noticed than an invisible creature without Stealth. Therefore I say HiPS is, in many cases, far better and more useful than invisibility. Unless somehow you have invisibility at will and can activate it as a non-action taken during a movement.
In answer to The black raven's comments above:
Let’s look at the differences between characters using Stealth, after having been observed, without HiPS vs. with HiPS.
The character without HiPS has several steps:
Requirement – Must be within one Move Action’s distance of cover/concealment.
1) Standard Action - Bluff check to distract his opponent (No penalty).
2) Move Action – Move to cover/concealment and attempt a Stealth check. (-10 penalty due to having to move quickly to get to a position of cover/concealment. There may be a further -5 penalty to this maneuver if you must move more than half your speed to get to that area of cover/concealment; unless you have the Rogue Talent that lets you move full speed with no penalty.)
So you can see the process is lengthy and requires cover/concealment within movement distance to perform. However, this maneuver may be performed even if you are in the middle of combat and your opponent is aware of you and the only penalties mentioned to the Stealth check are specifically caused by the difficulty of moving the appropriate distance quickly enough to get there before your opponent looks back at you from his distraction.
The character with HiPS has fewer steps and penalties:
Requirement – Must be within 10’ of some area of dim light/shadow. Or for Rangers, must be within a favored terrain.
1) Do not need to Bluff for distraction because HiPS allows you to use Stealth even while observed. You may use the Standard Action to attack.
2) Must take some movement (Move Action or 5’ step) because Stealth is used as part of a movement. You are not required to make it to cover/concealment, nor are you required to move any specific distance. You also do not have to worry about hiding before your opponent turns back from his distraction because no distraction was necessary. As the penalties for movement were the only ones detailed in the maneuver and have been eliminated, there are No Penalties to the Stealth check.
Most people try to compare the Stealth/Attack/Move, Stealth tactic to Sniping, but that would be incorrect. Instead it is better to compare it to hiding after having been observed. Without HiPS you must Bluff, then run for cover/concealment. With HiPS you don't need to Bluff first (which frees up your Standard Action) and you don't need to run for cover/concealment just so long as you take some movement in order to use Stealth. Without needing to Bluff and run you have eliminated any penalties to Stealth that may have applied.
...
Now let’s compare HiPS to Invisibility.
Invisibility:
1) Invisibility can be applied via Spell/Wand/Potion/Spell-like Ability – Standard Action.
2) It is a DC 20 Perception check to notice that an invisible creature is in the area – within 30’.
3) Invisibility grants you a solid+20/+40 to Stealth. A Perception check against the +20/+40 plus Stealth check if any can pinpoint the 5’ square an invisible creature is in.
4) Even after pinpointed an invisible creature has a 50% miss chance (total concealment).
5) Invisible creatures deny opponents their Dex bonus to AC as well as gaining a +2 to attack opponents who cannot see them.
6) Invisibility can be employed during any lighting conditions without requirement for cover/concealment.
Methods of defeat:
1) Many spells to include: See Invisible (easily made permanent), Invisibility Purge, Glitterdust, True Seeing, Antimagic Field, etc.
2) Perception check.
3) (EX)/(SU) senses: Tremorsense, Scent, Blindsense, Blindsight.
HiPS:
1) HiPS allows the use of Stealth – Non-action as part of a movement.
2) An opposed Perception check DC equal to the Stealth result is needed to notice/pinpoint a creature using Stealth.
3) If unnoticed the Stealth individual would be effectively invisible (IE: 50% miss chance to hit him if you guess luckily on which square he is in, denies Dex bonus to AC of opponents, with a +2 to attack).
4) HiPS has specific requirements to be employed (IE: within 10’ of shadow).
5) A character with HiPS/Stealth can drink a Potion of Invisibility and get +20/+40 to Stealth. An invisible creature cannon drink a Potion of Stealth that would grant an equivalent bonus to Stealth checks.
Methods of defeat:
1) A few spells: Antimagic Field. Arguably defeated by True Seeing. Glitterdust causes a -40 penalty to Stealth checks. (EX) versions of HiPS would not be affected by True Seeing or Antimagic Fields.
2) Perception checks.
3) (EX)/(SU) senses: Although these can be defeated by a 3.5 feat which forces even these senses to require Perception checks vs. your Stealth check.
4) One of the 3.5 (EX) versions of HiPS may be defeated by lowlight and darkvision.
...
At comparison Invisibility and HiPS are pretty even. The big advantage of Invisibility is that it can be employed anywhere with any lighting conditions. The big advantage of HiPS is that it can be employed as a non-action during a movement and has far fewer methods of defeat.
As for the Perception checks to notice them, by mid levels it is easy to have a Stealth skill high enough to make the Rogue much harder to spot than a Wizard using the Invisibility spell. I have a level 12 character with max ranks in Stealth, a high Dex, and a few items to boost Stealth and I am routinely harder to notice than the party Wizard who has a Ring of Invisibility.
NOTE: this is not a comprehensive list but rather what I could think of at the time. There are likely a few items having to do with both Invisibility and HiPS that I may have overlooked.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I am well aware that in daylight it requires cover/invisibility to maintain Stealth ... even in daylight, if yo
u have cover through the entirety of your path you are absolutely capable of maintaining Stealth throughout a move ... low wall to p
rovide cover over your whole path
None of those are in debate here. What is in debate here is the folks that believe HiPS is as good as invisibility and allows someone to hide
behind a barrel at noon in a desert with no cover, shadows, or otherwise and sneak up on you 100 ft without breaking stealth (whichis entirely outside both RAW and RAI.)
You are not required to make it to cover/concealment, nor are you required to move any specific distance.
We may be arguing semantics, but you always have a requirement for the stealth (cover/concealment, 10' of shadows, etc.)
Something like this would be outstanding. Or perhaps a really good search tool that would run through the entire PRD searching for a word or phrase and show you blurbs for each hit, then give you a link to take you to the original page for each blurb. That type of linking would be a real gift to the PF gamers.As to the rules...yeah it is one thing that web development and e-books could do a really amazing job of because some of those rules need to be scattered for context purposes (and would you really want to re-read certain text over and over if they put it in each place?) But I think with linking and pop-up boxes and stuff the manuals could be that much faster of a reference tool.
Yeah a more robust index might help. Not solely a Paizo issue, sorta a game manual in general issue but PF could be better.
Yeah, a PRD search function should have been a "must have" before release. It is the single largest defect in the PRD design.
No one has touched on this point.
In the stealth skill, it says it is impossible to use the stealth skill while attacking, running or charging.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that this "spring attack/sneak attack followed by stealth" is "impossible" to use the stealth skill BECAUSE you are attacking?
You could stealth up until the point that you sneak attack, afterwards you are in combat and are attacking and can no longer use the stealth skill.
|
|
I am sorry, Shadowlord, but several of your points do not agree with the RAW.
The only penalty associated with Stealth is for Sniping. If you are not Sniping, Stealth has no other mention of a circumstance that would cause penalties to the Stealth roll
Not true. A blinded character, for example, gets a penalty to all DEX-based skills, which includes Stealth. Just because no penalty is mentioned in the description of a skill it does not mean that there is NEVER a penalty to said skill.
Moreover, the description of the Stealth skill does indeed clearly mention a circumstance that would cause penalties to the Stealth roll : wearing armor.The -20 penalty to Stealth for Sniping is not there to show the difficulty of hiding again after someone has spotted you. It is there to show the difficulty of taking your shot without ever being seen. It is hard because if done correctly you never become visible to the opponent. That is something that HiPS does not offer.
The bolded part is not true either. Nowhere in the description of Sniping does it say that you can use Stealth while attacking. In fact, the very description of Stealth is very clear on the fact that "it is IMPOSSIBLE to use Stealth while attacking".
Must take some movement (Move Action or 5’ step) because Stealth is used as part of a movement.
Not true either. Stealth is not ALWAYS used as part of a movement. Moreover, the "+40 if you are standing still" part of Invisibility would make no sense if you have to move to make a Stealth check.
|
|
No one has touched on this point.
In the stealth skill, it says it is impossible to use the stealth skill while attacking, running or charging.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that this "spring attack/sneak attack followed by stealth" is "impossible" to use the stealth skill BECAUSE you are attacking?
You could stealth up until the point that you sneak attack, afterwards you are in combat and are attacking and can no longer use the stealth skill.
No, because the exact same reasoning can be applied to Sniping which explicitely allows you to use Stealth after attacking. There is nothing in the rules which prevent you from making a Stealth check after attacking.
None of those are in debate here. What is in debate here is the folks that believe HiPS is as good as invisibility and allows someone to hide behind a barrel at noon in a desert with no cover, shadows, or otherwise and sneak up on you 100 ft without breaking stealth (which is entirely outside both RAW and RAI.)
Well the barrel provides cover so you can hide behind it even at noon. However, if you wished to maintain Stealth after moving out from behind it you would only be able to go as far as the rules in Complete Adventurer allow.
Hiding in a desert with not cover, concealment, or shadows would be impossible for a Shadowdancer or Assassin. However, Rangers get desert as a Favored Terrain and absolutely could use HiPS/Stealth in a desert with no cover, concealment, or shadows due to that. Also your party members cast shadows so an Assassin could arguably use those to hide in.
...
You are not required to make it to cover/concealment, nor are you required to move any specific distance.
We may be arguing semantics, but you always have a requirement for the stealth (cover/concealment, 10' of shadows, etc.)
Again: "Right: Obviously if the Rogue is using HiPS he must maintain the prerequisites conditions of using HiPS."
When I say "using HiPS" I assume you meet the prerequisite to use it.
No one has touched on this point.
In the stealth skill, it says it is impossible to use the stealth skill while attacking, running or charging.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that this "spring attack/sneak attack followed by stealth" is "impossible" to use the stealth skill BECAUSE you are attacking?
You could stealth up until the point that you sneak attack, afterwards you are in combat and are attacking and can no longer use the stealth skill.
See The black raven's comments above.
You are returning to Stealth after your attack, not remaining in Stealth during your attack.
The only penalty associated with Stealth is for Sniping. If you are not Sniping, Stealth has no other mention of a circumstance that would cause penalties to the Stealth roll
Not true. A blinded character, for example, gets a penalty to all DEX-based skills, which includes Stealth. Just because no penalty is mentioned in the description of a skill it does not mean that there is NEVER a penalty to said skill.
Moreover, the description of the Stealth skill does indeed clearly mention a circumstance that would cause penalties to the Stealth roll : wearing armor.
You have ignored the entire point of my argument in that post and your reply makes no relevant point to counter it. I am talking about things that pertain to the actual OP not random other things that may or may not have an effect on a given character. Being blind or having heavy armor have absolutely zero bearing on a fully functional and unhindered character making a Stealth check.
Instead of simply attacking my point with irrelevant distractions, I challenge you to make your own case. Show some rule that applies a penalty to using Stealth while observed, other than the ones I have already stated. The only applicable penalties for it are the ones I used above which are applied for quick movement and to avoid the sight of a temporarily distracted foe. These are not applicable in the case of using HiPS. If you are suggesting using the Sniping penalty for this maneuver show some rule that says the Sniping tactic/penalty may be applied to melee attacks and where the Sniping tactic/penalty is applicable in a round when you have taken a Move Action.
...
The -20 penalty to Stealth for Sniping is not there to show the difficulty of hiding again after someone has spotted you. It is there to show the difficulty of taking your shot without ever being seen. It is hard because if done correctly you never become visible to the opponent. That is something that HiPS does not offer.
The bolded part is not true either. Nowhere in the description of Sniping does it say that you can use Stealth while attacking. In fact, the very description of Stealth is very clear on the fact that "it is IMPOSSIBLE to use Stealth while attacking".
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
When I read the bolded portion of the Sniping description in relation to what a sniper does it leads me to the conclusion that they are never seen.
Maintain = remaining throughout.
Obscured = unseen, unnoticed, unknown, hidden.
So yes, I think that if a sniper is good at what he is doing he is never seen and I believe RAW supports that.
In fact Sniping would be a pretty stupid set of rules if you did pop into view every round when you attack. Sure wouldn't take long for enemies to run over to where they last saw you (and they know you will be there because you can't move while Sniping) thereby negating whatever cover/concealment you were using to hide and ending your Stealth. Meanwhile you sat there like an idiot the whole time not moving because you were Sniping.
So my interpretation is this: It is impossible to use Stealth while attacking, however, in the case of Sniping you may maintain your obscure location by not moving (IE: using Stealth in place of a Move Action) and taking a -20 to your Stealth check.
...
Must take some movement (Move Action or 5’ step) because Stealth is used as part of a movement.
Not true either. Stealth is not ALWAYS used as part of a movement.
I suppose you could use Stealth while standing still in some circumstances. Using Stealth is stated as usually taking no action. It is also stated as usually being part of a movement. Other than that, the only time it is stated to be anything other than part of a movement is during Sniping where it is taken in place of a Move Action. (That is one of the reasons the Sniping penalty is not compatible with the Move/Stealth, Attack, Move/Stealth tactic of HiPS with Spring Attack.)
Moreover, the "+40 if you are standing still" part of Invisibility would make no sense if you have to move to make a Stealth check.
You don't roll a Stealth check for invisibility (and therefore don't need to move) to gain the +20/+40 bonus it grants to Stealth. Or if you are Sniping while using Greater Invisibility you would have the +40 the whole time because you never move. Also if you move to a hiding spot while invisible and having a +20 to Stealth and then stay in that spot, not moving, the next round your bonus would go up to +40 and you would still be hidden under the previous rounds Stealth check because you have done nothing to warrant a new one.
It is noteworthy that the description of bonuses to Stealth in the Invisibility spell is different from the description given of invisibility in the glossary of the PRD. If you go to Invisibility section of the Glossary there is a more detailed chart that describes the bonuses not as Stealth bonuses but as Perception penalties to notice an invisible creature. It basically equates to this:
Not moving: +40 to Perception DC.
Moving Half Speed: +35 to Perception DC.
Moving Normal Speed: +30 to Perception DC.
Running/Charging: +20 to Perception DC.
Talking/Combat: +20 to Perception DC.
Using Stealth: +20 to Perception DC.
This in my opinion is a better description of what invisibility does. It doesn't increase your Stealth ability so much as it increases the difficulty others have in perceiving you. There is a subtle difference.
No one has touched on this point.
In the stealth skill, it says it is impossible to use the stealth skill while attacking, running or charging.
Wouldn't it be safe to say that this "spring attack/sneak attack followed by stealth" is "impossible" to use the stealth skill BECAUSE you are attacking?
You could stealth up until the point that you sneak attack, afterwards you are in combat and are attacking and can no longer use the stealth skill.
See The black raven's comments above.
You are returning to Stealth after your attack, not remaining in Stealth during your attack.
You are, however, using Stealth while you are making a melee attack, as in you are using Stealth in the same round you are making your melee attack. If you use it before a melee attack you're golden because that's what rogues do for sneak attack. And that's normally not a problem because you must make your move either before or after an attack. This is just a problem you run into with spring attack.
Sniping is very specific about it's rules. Must be ranged, must be at least 10' away, you cannot move, and you get a -20 to your stealth check.
There are no such rules for making a snipe-type melee attack. Stealthing directly after attacking in the same round looks to be prohibited because there is no "sniping" rules for melee attacks and it is impossible to stealth while attacking. Without spring attack, you could not melee attack a foe and then run and hide in the same round, HiPS or no. At least that's how I'm reading it. Impossible to use stealth while attacking. Snipe is the only exception because it is the only exception written to override where it would be otherwise impossible to use stealth.
|
|
You are, however, using Stealth while you are making a melee attack, as in you are
If you use it before a melee attack you're golden because that's what rogues do for sneak attack. And that's normally not a problem because you must make your This is just a problem you run into with spring attack.
This may come across as snarky, but that is not my intent.
How is moving before an attack, and then attacking, in a round, any different than "using Stealth in the same round you are making your melee attack"?
Because the rest of your argument is predicated on that differentiation, and I am not seeing the difference.
Are you saying that you can only Move-Attack with Stealth?
No Attack - Move with Stealth?
|
|
Impossible to use stealth while attacking. Snipe is the only exception because it is the only exception written to override where it would be otherwise impossible to use stealth.
I personally have no problem reconciling it because I do not see Snipe as an exception to the "Impossible while attacking" rule. In fact, I think it quite strange that the rule would say that it is "Impossible to use Stealth while attacking" and then give an exception a few lines below.
I guess it depends on how you interpret "maintaining your obscured location" : I do not see it as staying hidden during the whole attack/Stealth thing, but rather as avoiding to draw attention to you when you attack (and thus can be potentially perceived).
I personally like the spring attack + stealth to keep your exact location ibscured when you have HiPS to represent the situation where something hits you in the back and goes back to hiding so quickly that you cannot see where it came from and where it went. Think about the deadly stone creatures in the second Lara Croft movie for example.
You are, however, using Stealth while you are making a melee attack, as in you are using Stealth in the same round you are making your melee attack.
I believe if the designers wanted to say "it is impossible to use Stealth in the same turn as an attack" they would have said that. There is a big difference in the terminology of using Stealth while attacking vs. using Stealth in the same round as an attack.
If you use it before a melee attack you're golden because that's what rogues do for sneak attack.
This statement breaks the rules you set forth in your previous sentence. If you can't use Stealth in the same round as you attack then you would not be able to use Stealth before you attack either, therefore no sneaking up on people for Sneak Attack.
The big thing to remember here is that you are not using Stealth while attacking, but rather you are approaching in Stealth before your attack and then retreating making a second Stealth check after your attack.
Sniping is very specific about it's rules. Must be ranged, must be at least 10' away, you cannot move, and you get a -20 to your stealth check.
There are no such rules for making a snipe-type melee attack. Stealthing directly after attacking in the same round looks to be prohibited because there is no "sniping" rules for melee attacks and it is impossible to stealth while attacking. Without spring attack, you could not melee attack a foe and then run and hide in the same round, HiPS or no. At least that's how I'm reading it. Impossible to use stealth while attacking. Snipe is the only exception because it is the only exception written to override where it would be otherwise impossible to use stealth.
There are two fundamental issues in this last statement: "while" and post-attack Stealth.
1) If you apply what I have written above to your understanding of not being able to use Stealth "while" attacking then 50% of your problem goes away. Never in this maneuver are you using Stealth "while" making your attack.
2) Now, if we solve the "while" issue then apply it to the Spring Attack tactic we end up with a three part action: Movement/Attack/Movement. The idea is to make a Stealth check as part of each of the two movements with a period in the middle, during the attack, when you cannot use Stealth. There is only one single difference between the first Stealth check and the Second: being observed. The first Stealth check is easily made as you approach your enemy and have not yet been observed. As you attack you leave Stealth and become observed. Now, as you attempt to move away, you want to make a new Stealth check but you are being actively observed. You cannot use Stealth while being observed so this maneuver is impossible. However, with HiPS you may use Stealth even while being observed, which is what makes the maneuver possible.
So, it is not so much a Sniping-like melee rule but rather a maneuver which would be impossible due to the inability to use Stealth while observed. However, HiPS allows you to use Stealth while observed making the maneuver possible.
Ok now I am confused on just exactly what your stance on Sniping is. From this post I see two possible ways that you might see it and for the sake of debate I am going to address them.
I personally have no problem reconciling it because I do not see Snipe as an exception to the "Impossible while attacking" rule. In fact, I think it quite strange that the rule would say that it is "Impossible to use Stealth while attacking" and then give an exception a few lines below.
Most people who take this stance describe what they envision as a hidden archer popping into plain view/observation (becoming momentarily visible/observed) to take a shot and then returning to Stealth. I have two major issues with this method:
1) It makes no sense to even bother using Stealth in a situation where your enemy has seen you pop out and you are pinned down to your Stealth position, unable to reposition/move. It would be like hiding inside a barrel, popping up to fire an arrow, then ducking back inside after your opponent has seen you. You are giggling to yourself and thinking you are hidden and your opponent is thinking, I know exactly where you are and I am going to walk over to that barrel and beat you to death. It completely defeats the entire purpose of sniping.
2) If you do not, mechanically, maintain Stealth throughout the maneuver, then by default you are leaving Stealth as you attack. If you leave Stealth you will become observed, making the second Stealth check impossible, even as a Move Action with a -20 penalty. You cannot use Stealth while being observed, so by this interpretation of Sniping, the tactic is in violation of the rules as well.
I guess it depends on how you interpret "maintaining your obscured location" : I do not see it as staying hidden during the whole attack/Stealth thing, but rather as avoiding to draw attention to you when you attack (and thus can be potentially perceived).
I don't know if you meant it this way but you basically just said the exact same thing I did. The bolded text says you avoid drawing attention. The definition of Stealth is avoiding detection. May just be me but: Maintain obscure location = avoid drawing attention = avoid detection = maintain Stealth = never seen?
This statement of yours, strangely enough, makes me almost think we might be on the same page with Sniping. I take your statement "avoiding attention" to mean that while you don't think the sniper explicitly maintains Stealth through his attack, you also don't believe he becomes automatically visible/observed during the attack, symbolized by the second Stealth check as a Move Action with a -20 penalty. If this is the case, I will go into a more detailed explanation of my view of Sniping: I often say that I believe during Sniping you are under Stealth the whole time and are never seen (unless the enemy beats your Stealth -20 with his Perception check). In truth that is how I view the mechanic, however it would be a gross oversimplification of how I envision the tactic working.
Hopefully this will clear up exactly what I mean when I say: The second Stealth, as a Move Action at -20, is there to represent that a sniper is never seen by his opponent:
(IE: Maintain Stealth)
2) From a more detailed, cinematic perspective I visualize it working quite a bit differently: Firstly I realize that you cannot use Stealth while attacking, so you must leave Stealth at some point. Secondly, you also cannot use Stealth while being observed, so even though you leave Stealth you must not become observed. With those acknowledgments, the way I envision how Sniping works is this:
A Fighter walks along the thick undergrowth of the forest floor in search of a Ranger. The Ranger is hiding behind the enormous trunk of an ancient oak tree, using Stealth to conceal his location from the Fighter. The Ranger then, fast as lightning, steps away from the cover of the tree trunk, fires a single arrow at the Fighter, and steps back behind cover just as fast. As he steps back behind cover he makes a new Stealth check, as a Move Action at a -20 penalty. Now, the Fighter in that instant also makes a Perception check. If his Perception check beats the Ranger's Stealth check, then the Ranger was spotted as he left Stealth to fire his arrow and cannot regain Stealth. If the Perception check fails then the Ranger fired at just the right moment when the Fighter was looking away, and returned to Stealth so quickly that he was in fact never seen/observed and the Fighter would have no idea where his opponent was hiding, although he would probably have a good idea of the general direction the arrow came from.
3) So, I do in fact believe that you leave Stealth during the attack, however, the second Stealth check (if successful) represents you returning to Stealth without having been noticed. It is mechanically transparent and far simpler, however, just to say that you maintain Stealth throughout the entire maneuver, maintaining your obscured location; since, even though you are attacking, at no point in the maneuver do you truly enter plain view (IE: DC 0 Perception to spot) and become observed.
I personally like the spring attack + stealth to keep your exact location ibscured when you have HiPS to represent the situation where something hits you in the back and goes back to hiding so quickly that you cannot see where it came from and where it went. Think about the deadly stone creatures in the second Lara Croft movie for example.
The movie "Wanted" has some excellent displays of HiPS action when the main character is knife fighting the butcher.
I've read the whole thread, but I feel everything has been said...
Except this...
A really good example of HiPS as per the Ranger ability would be in Crocodile Dundee 2, when the tracker hears that the mercs are looking for Dundee and he just up and walks away.
Guy following him just suddenly doesn't see him anymore.
If you want to describe a Ranger's HiPS in Favored Terrain.. there you go.
You are, however, using Stealth while you are making a melee attack, as in you are
If you use it before a melee attack you're golden because that's what rogues do for sneak attack. And that's normally not a problem because you must make your This is just a problem you run into with spring attack.
This may come across as snarky, but that is not my intent.
How is moving before an attack, and then attacking, in a round, any different than "using Stealth in the same round you are making your melee attack"?
Because the rest of your argument is predicated on that differentiation, and I am not seeing the difference.Are you saying that you can only Move-Attack with Stealth?
No Attack - Move with Stealth?
Post ate. Argh. I'll try and summarize.
Yes I am saying that. Maybe I'm just being annoying, sorry about that! lol I think that the "impossible to stealth while attacking" should have a bit longer of a look at it. I could be way off base, but I think it's more in line with rules as written and intended.
Basically, in a combat round of 6 seconds, each action is simmultaneous. So in the case of attacking, then moving and stealthing, and only later I "catch up" to you and try and find you, that's not quite accurate to what happens. In the same round, the same 6 seconds, I'm right behind you in pursuit. You never get a chance to stealth because I'm right next to you working my opportunity to stick my sword through you.
If I never know you're there (i.e. already stealthed) you can move up to and around me until your hearts content if I don't find you. The key is, as soon as you attack, you can no longer stealth until combat is resolved. (You flee or something else ends combat).
That's how I'm reading it. If it is impossible to stealth while attacking, with Snipe being the only exception mentioned, then it should be impossible to stealth while attacking.